Purpose:To compare PET extracted metrics and investigate the role of a gradient‐based PET segmentation tool, PET Edge (MIM Software Inc., Cleveland, OH), in the context of an adaptive PET protocol for node positive gynecologic cancer patients.Methods:An IRB approved protocol enrolled women with gynecological, PET visible malignancies. A PET‐CT was obtained for treatment planning prescribed to 45–50.4Gy with a 55– 70Gy boost to the PET positive nodes. An intra‐treatment PET‐CT was obtained between 30–36Gy, and all volumes re‐contoured. Standard uptake values (SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVmedian) and GTV volumes were extracted from the clinician contoured GTVs on the pre‐ and intra‐treament PET‐CT for primaries and nodes and compared with a two tailed Wilcoxon signed‐rank test. The differences between primary and node GTV volumes contoured in the treatment planning system and those volumes generated using PET Edge were also investigated. Bland‐Altman plots were used to describe significant differences between the two contouring methods.Results:Thirteen women were enrolled in this study. The median baseline/intra‐treatment primary (SUVmax, mean, median) were (30.5, 9.09, 7.83)/(16.6, 4.35, 3.74), and nodes were (20.1, 4.64, 3.93)/(6.78, 3.13, 3.26). The p values were all < 0.001. The clinical contours were all larger than the PET Edge generated ones, with mean difference of +20.6 ml for primary, and +23.5 ml for nodes. The Bland‐Altman revealed changes between clinician/PET Edge contours to be mostly within the margins of the coefficient of variability. However, there was a proportional trend, i.e. the larger the GTV, the larger the clinical contours as compared to PET Edge contours.Conclusion:Primary and node SUV values taken from the intratreament PET‐CT can be used to assess the disease response and to design an adaptive plan. The PET Edge tool can streamline the contouring process and lead to smaller, less user‐dependent contours.